Here is Willow, Ash and Arianna's Feminist Lens analysis of Dickinson's poem, "It Was Not Death," for you to respond to. Read their thesis and question, then their explanation. After that, reply to their question in the comments. You can challenge their thesis or question using ideas from the Psychoanalytic lens, but you can't simply reject it - you have to produce an alternative interpretation and relate it back to theirs.
Thesis: The poem, “It was not Death, for I stood up,” by Emily Dickinson, when viewed through a feminist lens, depicts the noxious circle, masked by the euphoria of romance, that traps women in the confines of the patriarchy. Question: Is the narrator’s fate truly final? Can she still escape the patriarchy, and if she can, why has she given up? Explanation: In this piece, the narrator, a woman, comes to realize how, through romantic relationships, mankind entraps women in the prison of the patriarchy, just as her lover has just done to her in the poem. The narrator describes her wedding day, and as her lover kisses her, sealing their marriage, she “taste[s]” something like death. This “death” is not literal, for she “stood up,” alive. Instead, this this “death” is symbolic of the that of her independence and individuality. By letting this man marry her, she has allowed him to assert his superiority over her. While she had initially believed that their roles would be equal in their marriage, she now realizes that her role as the wife is inferior to that of the husband, at least in the society she lives in. As a wife, she will be forced to submit to her husband’s will, relinquishing her freedoms as an individual in order to conform to the criteria of wifehood. Instead of living her own life, following her own pursuits and personal will, she will act purely to fit the social standard of what a wife should be. However, this realization came too late for in her relationship for her to escape it. As her lover courted her, she was swept up in the hot passion of love, the “Siroccos,” and failed to note the precursors of the patriarchy’s looming triumph over her. And now, according to the narrator, her fate is as sealed and final as the permanency of death. Another depiction of the patriarchy’s cycle in literature can be found in Tennessee William’s play A Streetcar Named Desire. Stella DuBois, a victim of the patriarchy, once was a strong, young woman, who even prided herself in her independence, as she had stuck out on her own, leaving the family estate to make her own life. However, after this display of the strength of her personal will, Stella falls for a man named Stanley Kowalski. He woos Stella, especially through sexual pleasure, and through love blinds her into ignorance. With love clouding her mind and logic, Stella allows herself to become the submissive partner in an abusive relationship. She later in the play even gives birth to the child of this male chauvinist, conforming to the social belief of what women are meant to be, wives and mothers.
15 Comments
Luke Devine
9/20/2015 05:44:54 pm
The Psychoanalytic lens can incite a different view towards Emily Dickinson's poem "It was not Death, For I Stood Up." In this poem the narrator represents the ego, as she has to decide between the id and superego. The id is the narrator's relationship with her lover behind closed doors, as they can be free with one another and not have to follow any rules. The superego is her relationship in public, as she and her lover have to act a certain way according to society. During most of the poem she describes her feelings about her relationship using many contradictory phrases. She says that "It was not Frost, for on my Flesh I felt Siroccos-" meaning that it is both hot and cold at the same time. This contradiction refers to her love life, as it is torn between private interactions and society's ideals. Emily Dickinson's poem "It was not Death, For I Stood Up" is full of complexity, and therefore it can be interpreted through many different lenses of literary criticism.
Reply
Trey Soya
9/20/2015 07:05:24 pm
Reading Emily Dickinson's poem "It was not Death, For I Stood Up" with the feminist lens is very interesting. I believe that the narrator's choice is final. The choice maybe final, but I think the narrator can become just as powerful as the patriarch. If the narrator gives up then she will be at the will of the patriarch, but if she can stand her ground against him, and compromise, then she will be just as powerful. Viewing this poem in the Psychoanalytic lens I saw that the Superego, was the patriarch or society which was forcing her life to be "fitted to a frame" where she had to follow all the rules. I then saw that the ID was the feeling the narrator had wanting to be free and decide her own destiny instead of listening to society. After going through many conflicts between the SuperEgo and the ID, the Ego, which was herself decided to be with the SuperEgo where she would follow all the rules and be accepted in society.
Reply
Willow Martin
9/21/2015 07:01:03 pm
I definitely see a prevalent overlap between the Patriarchy and the Superego in this poem. In either case, society is forcing the narrator to conform to the role that has been laid out for her, forcing her to abandon all that is individual and unique about herself. I personally believe that the narrator's fate is only made final by her own lack of desire to rebel. She does not admit this to herself, but in reality, all humans have the ability and choice to rebel against the rules, whether they be official laws or informal customs. The narrator does not HAVE to become a creature of submission, only ever obeying her husband, never her own independent desires. However, she has made the conscious choice to continue on the path on which she has found herself. To stray from this path could result in her losing many things (a lover, the opportunity for a comfortable lifestyle (provided for by her husband), etc.). The narrator has weighed the possibility of loss of companionship and property against the probability of the loss of her independence. And she found she did not value her individuality enough in order to cede the opportunities and benefits marriage would provide her with. She will never confess this to be true, as her entire poem is essentially her denying that she has the power to change her fate, but in actuality, the narrator believes that in conforming to the patriarchy/ society (obeying the Superego), she will be able to lead a more enjoyable life style than she would be able to otherwise. She has accepted her oppression by mankind willingly and openly, for by claiming that she has no power with which to rebel against the patriarchy, she is able to use her "helplessness" as an excuse, fooling herself and others into believing that the narrator WANTS independence, but there's just simply no way she may regain it. It is a mechanism that exists to protect her pride.
Reply
Ford Zacks
9/21/2015 01:54:06 pm
I do agree with this analysis of “It was not Death, For I Stood Up” by Emily Dickinson. This idea of being trapped under a patriarch is very interesting to analyze. In my opinion, it is very possible for her to escape this patriarchy. Take Stella for example. She could very easily leave Stanley. She could just walk out. But what is stopping her? Denial is stopping her. This is the only power Stanley has over Stella. He has made her believe that she is in the right place in life. In the case of this poem, as this analysis states, the woman has realized that she is not in control. With this knowledge, she has eliminated all the power of her husband, the patriarch, over her. This leads me to believe that she could escape, however, she has given up. When looking at this poem psychoanalytically it is easy to see that, although she realizes what is happening, her ego is siding with her superego. She is telling herself that society wants her to be this way; stuck in a relationship with no power because she is a woman. Even with knowledge of her situation, her own unconscious is telling her that everything is fine.
Reply
Arianna Manino
9/21/2015 04:34:05 pm
When I first read "it was not Death, For I Stood Up" Stella automatically came into mind. I agree with everything you said about her reasons for staying with Stanley. Another example I thought of was Stanley's Napoleonic code. How he was the man of the house and the girls had to obey to him. So yes, I do think A Streetcar named Desire is a very good example for this poem and Stella is a great character to relate it too.
Reply
Olivia Barkey
9/21/2015 05:15:16 pm
I agree with Willow, Ash and Arianna's view of the poem from the feminism lens. Sometimes when women marry, it can trap them and chain them to their husbands. They become the housewives, the "slave to men" in a sense. It is a stereotypical woman's job to keep the household in order and make meals and to bear children... ect. What do the men do? In my house my Dad goes to work and then comes home and plops himself down on the couch. Meanwhile my Mom has been running around all day keeping the ship that is our house afloat. Now I'm not saying that my Mom has lost her independence through marriage, like a lot of other women. But she did lose some of the freedom to do what she wants when she got married and had kids because she chose to stay home and take care of the family. Some women are forced to do this.
Reply
Sydney Gannon
9/21/2015 05:22:40 pm
Looking at "It was not Death, For I Stood Up" by Emily Dickinson through the feminist lens is very interesting to me. I agree with this analysis and how you compared it to Stella. Some may see that when a woman is married she has to follow by the man's rules and I think that Stella characterizes that "stereotype" exactly. To answer your question, I do not believe that the narrator's fate is truly final, but she has given up. She does not believe she can do anything to escape, nor does she try. She has given up because she does not want to ruin any serious relationship she has or will eventually have, but she could escape this patriarchy if she really wanted to.
Reply
Will Spencer
9/21/2015 05:30:02 pm
The analysis of "It was not death for I stood up" is very interesting, and I do agree with it. The feminist lens in this poem was very amusing to read, and this analysis cleared my mind up. Women were not treated as well as men back in those time periods. Women were considered inferior to men. Now, the question is if the narrator’s fate is truly final. I believe that her fate is not final, and there is always time to change. The patriarchy may seem hard to escape, but it's possible. A legitimate reason why she may have given up is because how society is. She has gotten used to it so much that its just normal. All women hated this philosophy on the inside but they were to afraid to do anything, until of course the women rights uprising. This story does relate to "A Streetcar Named Desire" strongly. Stanley is the dominant male in the story, while Stella and Blanche are inferior towards him. I feel like as if the women's unconscious mind is telling them that everything is going to be all right, sort of like their ID. However, their conscious is telling them that this is not right, and needs to be changed.
Reply
Shelley Banfield
9/21/2015 07:09:34 pm
The feminist lens is an incredibly powerful way to view "It was not Death, For I Stood Up" by Emily Dickinson. I agree with the analysis from this group when they say that the 'death' represents this woman's individuality she must give up in order to love this man. Death is the most final thing known to most people and Emily does not explain her situation as one she can escape from. Since she does not have this overpowering strive to escape from her lover, she will not be able to do so. I agree with the idea that Emily was overpowered by her man's power and attractiveness to the point where she could no longer separate herself from him just like Stella from A Streetcar Named Desire. The women in these two pieces of literature are weak and entirely dependent upon another person in order to find happiness but what they come to find out is how impossible it is to leave these people. They are the one who know they should leave but do not due to their own 'happiness' which is hardly provided by their significant others.
Reply
Olivia Smelas
9/21/2015 07:23:26 pm
I analyzed "It was not death" by Emily Dickinson through the psychoanalytic lens, so it was interesting for me to read Ash, Willow and Arianna's views through the feminist lens. I completely agree with their interpretation, I think its spot on. I like what Trey and Luke mentioned about the narrator being the ego, and having to make a choice between the id, passionate romance, and the superego, the way the relationship is maintained through the glares of society. Several others mentioned Stella from Streetcar Named Desire as their example, and though Stella is the poster child for submission to a patriarchal power, I think Blanche reflects this idea as well. As the story progressed, and the reader learned of Blanche's actual tarnished reputation and past, the connections became clear. Throughout Blanche's time in Laurel, as we all know, she had quite a few suitors, using her feminine power and her body to get the attention and love she so thirsted for. Blanche spends her time "swept up in Siroccos", as Willow, Ash and Arianna put it, swept up in passion, lust, and desire for attention. You could say that Blanche lived her life in Laurel making her decisions based primarily on id, then when she moved in with Stella and Stanley, she became much more concerned with her looks, her reputation, and the way society looked at her generally. Blanche began to make her choices based upon superego. But, that's beside the point, by Blanche simply using her femininity to get what she wants, she is falling victim to the vicious cycle of patriarchal triumph over women. Blanche is reinforcing the stereotype, women are meant to be wives, mothers, and used for fulfillment of the id, if nothing else. Blanche may not have realized the severity of her actions, but in reality, she was enforcing gender roles and the aforementioned cycle. Just like Stanley used his masculinity and physical power to force Stella into submission, Blanche is using her femininity to fulfill her desires, but is simultaneously giving man the power to determine her happiness and sense of self-worth—falling victim to the cycle. To answer the question, I don’t believe the narrator’s fate is final. If she has acknowledged the fact that she is a victim of the cycle, there shouldn’t be anything stopping her from packing her bags, divorcing her husband, and travelling the world, much like another woman we discussed in class whose name is escaping me. What is likely stopping her is routine, the narrator is likely comfortable being quiet and submissive, and it’s probably hard to find motivation to leave. If the narrator is confident that her partner can provide her all she needs, she must ask herself, would it be worth it to sacrifice my individuality and freedom for comfort and protection? The answer should always be no. It is never worth it. I know this post kind of went off in a hundred different directions, but I hope it makes some sort of sense.
Reply
Olivia Smelas
9/21/2015 09:25:37 pm
I meant to say yes, it is always worth it.
Reply
Bridget Kelly
9/21/2015 08:27:42 pm
When I first read "It Was Not Death, for I Stood Up" Emily Dickinson, I read it through the psychoanalytical lens. This lens originally made me read the poem in quite a literal way. So after reading their interpretation of the poem through the feminist lens, I was really intrigued. It's such a different view on the poem that I had not seen before. I agree with how they view it, saying that death represents the end of her independence. In the year that this poem was written, I think it would be more true than it is now. Women back then were easily ignored because they were believed to not have as many rights as men do. But I feel like now in this society, women are viewed to have just as many rights as men and are shown so much more respect. And when they marry, their dreams and potential are not ruined. Some freedom may be taken away from their lives when/if they become mothers, but other than that their independence will stay as strong as it was when they were a maiden
Reply
Olivia Jordan
9/23/2015 02:43:22 pm
After reading Ash, Willow, and Arianna's interpretation of "It Was Not Death, For I Stood Up," by Emily Dickinson, my personal view of the poem has completely changed. I had originally examined this piece through the psychoanalytical lens and took the more literal approach behind the meaning of the speakers "death". Now after seeing another perspective on the poem, I favor this piece through the feminist lens. How they used this lens to break down specific lines brought much more meaning behind the words that at first were unknown to me. I also agree with the connection to Streetcar, comparing the speaker's marriage to Stella and Stanley's. Both of these marriage's have left the "others" or female counterparts as victims of patriarchy, who lack freedom. However, I also comply with Olivia Smelas’ theory of Blanche feeding into a world of patriarchy, not through marriage but through her attempt to fulfill her desires and lacking sense of self-worth. My answer to your question is that I do feel that the speaker’s fate does not have to be final, but she must take time to discover more about herself, before she can completely break away from being “possessed” by her husband. Finding this sense of self will let her escape the patriarchy, and allow her to discover exactly what her future “freedom” entails. She has given up because she considers herself to be the “other” after being possessed for such a long time and is now finding it difficult to escape her life-long commitment.
Reply
Kelly Farley
9/24/2015 02:51:42 pm
Reading the poem again with the feminist lens gives me a new, interesting interpretation of "It was not Death, For I Stood Up" by Emily Dickinson. I really liked the idea that she was not actually dead, but she considers herself to be. When she lets this man marry her, she was letting him take control over her. The lines, "And fitted to a frame, And could not breathe without a key" now makes sense to me after reading this. She is now fitted to what she is supposed to be, this is how society will now see her, as a wife. She cannot breathe without a key meaning she cannot be free and do what she wants without the approval of her husband. Without this freedom, she feels as if she is dead when in reality, she is not. I do not think that her fate is final, if she wanted to, she could still escape. When she says she is dead, this shows that she has given up because she does not think she can escape. I liked reading this poem through the feminist lens and reading this interpretation gave me a different perspective on the poem.
Reply
Melissa Velazquez
9/24/2015 04:27:59 pm
The poem "It Was Not Death, For I Stood Up" in the feminist lenses is a whole different perspective on the poem. I believe this is true. Emily is not literally dead. She feels trapped in her marriage. She has to let go of her freedom. Her fate is not final because she could always get a divorce. In a feminist lens, in the real world there is fear that when a woman rejects or says no to a male, the males become violent towards them. In the poem, it is possible to not be in Emily's situation but in those times i feel there was a punishment.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Categories
AuthorMr. Justin Biggs Archives
August 2016
|